p a r t i

...................................................................................................................

HISTORICAL

ESCHATOLOGY...................................................................................................................

a

...................................................................................................................

BIBLICAL AND

PATRISTIC

ESCHATOLOGY...................................................................................................................

c h a p t e r 1

...................................................................................................................

OLD TESTAMENT

ESCHATOLOGY

AND THE RISE

OF APOCALYPTICISM...................................................................................................................

bill t. arnold

Eschatology does not appear to play a prominent role in the scriptures of ancient

Israel, the ‘‘Old Testament’’ of Christian tradition, at least not at first glance. Un-

derstood broadly enough, however, and properly associated with other formula-

tions of Israel’s theological expressions, it will become clear that eschatology even-

tually evolved into a prominent role indeed.

Israel’s theology was intensely grounded in time and space, and especially in

the events of Israel’s own history. This is not to say that all revelation of God’s will

was only and always historical, but rather that the national ideals and most ex-

pressions of that theological identity were rooted in history. On the one hand, then,

eschatology appears to get short shrift in the Old Testament. On the other hand,

Israel’s most fundamental ideals, both personal and national, took root early in the

form of ancestral promises and royal images that became central to the theological

expressions in the rest of the Bible, as we shall see. These two streams of thought—

God’s role in Israel’s history and the promises of that history—converged to give

Israel an eschatological hope. The presence, then, of eschatology in the Old Testa-

ment gradually became more prominent in the prophets and in later Jewish apoca-

lyptic texts, which began to appear already in the canon of the Old Testament itself.

This chapter considers the eschatology of the Old Testament in three parts.

First, the emergence and development of eschatological themes in Israel’s scriptures

are considered generally. Second, the chapter considers how prophecy in ancient

Israel relates to that of the ancient Near East and explores the degree to which

Israel’s eschatological impulses were unique. Finally, the chapter devotes attention

to the complicated and disputed relationship between Old Testament eschatology

and the rise of apocalypticism.

Development of the Concept

in Israel.................................................................................................................................................

The term ‘‘eschatology’’ itself is not easy to define, although its etymology is clear

enough. Derived from the Greek GswatoB (eschatos, ‘‘last’’), the term eschatology

represents that branch of theology devoted to last or final things, such as death and

judgment, heaven and hell, and the end of the world. It is routinely assumed that

the study of eschatology of necessity includes a clearly formulated conception of

the end of the world or of time, with a pronounced doctrine of resurrection and

individual judgment, initiating a radically new era of salvation distinct and discon-

tinuous with current reality. Such conceptions are rare in the Old Testament, and if

we limit ‘‘eschatology’’ to such a narrow definition, this chapter would be exceed-

ingly brief indeed.

So our first task is to refine the definition of eschatology as a prelude to dem-

onstrating how it relates to the Hebrew scriptures. Negatively, it can be said that

Old Testament eschatology is not primarily individual eschatology in that it is sel-

dom specific about the final fate of the individual as opposed to national or uni-

versal eschatology, which are often blended together in the Old Testament.1 Also

negatively stated, it needs to be kept in mind that the Old Testament has no fully

developed conception of heaven and hell, so that any such cleaving between these

otherworldly realities and present history again understands eschatology too nar-

rowly to be of use when approaching the Old Testament. While individual and

otherworldly eschatologies can be too narrowly defined, it is equally possible to

speak of eschatology in a fashion that is too broad to be of any use in this dis-

cussion. It is insufficient to assert that eschatology is expressed in hopeful promises

or expectations of a brighter future, especially if that future is said to be achieved by

means of human progress. If eschatology as individual and as otherworldly is too

narrow, hopeful humanprogress in expectation of a brighter tomorrow is too broad.

Israelite eschatology is manifested in the expectation of a future eon radically

discontinuous with the present.2 In it, the circumstances of history will be trans-

formed but not transcended. The present cosmos, created as ‘‘good’’ by Yhwh but

temporarily marred by injustice, infirmity, war, and sin, and in general by evil

will be reclaimed and redeemed by God. Central to this Israelite understanding is

24 bill t. arnold

a sense of the ‘‘radical wrongness of the present world and the conviction that

radical changes, to make things right, will indeed occur ‘in that day,’ that is, at

some time known only to God.’’3 This is no escapist eschatology, since it never

completely forsakes the world we now inhabit. Rather it longs for, indeed expects,

a period in which Yhwh triumphs over evil, redeems his people Israel, and finally

rules the world in peace and salvation. In the meantime, God’s people are called

upon to live faithfully to the covenant, hearing Yhwh’s call to righteous behavior,

resulting in an ‘‘eschatological ethic.’’4 And, as we shall see, this is no afterthought

in Israelite philosophy, but is rather integrally congruous with all that comes before

it in the early portions of the Old Testament.

Yet it is not immediately obvious that this concept was important in ancient

Israel. There are no specific Hebrew designations for such a glorious eon—

the enigmatic ‘‘day of Yhwh’’ being somewhat problematic in this regard (see

below)—and explicit eschatological pronouncements are rare early in the collec-

tion although they increase toward the close of the Old Testament period.5 None-

theless, at the heart of Israel’s insistence that Yhwh created the world and acted on

Israel’s behalf lie the conceptual foundations for an eschatological hope. Through-

out Israel’s Heilsgeschichte, or redemptive history, it is the activity of Yhwh that

takes center stage, acting in history in self-revelation in order to save and preserve

Israel against all opponents. Throughout the extended primary history of the Bible

(i.e., from Genesis through 2 Kings), history is the principal sphere of God’s self-

revelation in which he establishes his dominion and preserves Israel as his ‘‘trea-

sured possession’’ (Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6, 14:2, 26:18; Mal 3:17). The course of that salvation

history follows a trajectory of promises, beginning with the ancestral family in

northern Mesopotamia (Gn 12:1–3) and to some degree extending throughout the

whole. Eschatology, in a sense, is that part of Heilsgeschichte ‘‘which is still in pros-

pect and which presses for realization.’’6 It is a culmination of history, rather than

an annulment of it.

The conceptual foundations for Israel’s eschatology, then, may be traced along

a historical continuum in the narration of redemptive history, beginning with

the ancestral promises of Genesis (Gn 12:1–3). The promises of land and progeny

combine older ancestral traditions into a unified national epic and drive the nar-

rative forward.7 Since neither the numerical extent of the progeny as ‘‘a great na-

tion’’ (Gn 12:2) nor the geographical extent of the land promised (Gn 15:18–21)

became a reality in the lives of the ancestral generations, the promises themselves

are by definition projected into the future. As such, they become the ‘‘realized

eschatology’’ for the Mosaic period (Ex 2:24–25). Although the Sinaitic covenant

traditions themselves appear to make little direct contribution to the development

of eschatology in Israel, their insistence on future compliance to the covenant

stipulations creates a distinctly forward-looking trajectory.8 In essence, Israel has

two alternatives. The people can obey the covenant in the future and be blessed, or

they can break the covenant and be cursed (Dt 27:16–46, 28:1–14). Thus, Israel’s

covenant traditions required a determinative and ethical self-reflection, a stance

that also required a future orientation and expectation of blessing or curse.

old testament eschatology and the rise of apocalypticism 25

The conceptual foundations for eschatology are most noticeably observed along

the contours of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). After the conquest of the land

promised in the ancestral narratives, the DtrH portrays a chaotic premonarchic

period meant to illustrate the need for a monarchy (Judges) while also empha-

sizing the central role of the holy place (ark of the covenant and tabernacle) and

the priesthood (the Shiloh narratives of 1 Sm 1–3). These latter institutions failed

miserably due to corrupt leadership, and when the monarchy is introduced in

ancient Israel, three new institutions are explicitly tied together as a means of re-

solving the earlier problems: the monarchy, a central worship site, and the priest-

hood, all converging inDavid, Jerusalem, and Zadok. Essentially, these three themes

converge in Israel’s messianic expectation; and in the prophets and in the inter-

testamental period, an eschatological hope grows from this ideal.9 Beyond the

DtrH, additional features of this Zion theology were developed in the Psalms, par-

ticularly the idea of a life-giving stream or river flowing from the presence of God

on the mountain, and the security that God’s presence in the city provides through

his defeat of hostile enemies (e.g., Pss 46 and 48).10 Once the ideal king, David,

established the ideal city, Zion, it became Yhwh’s chosen mountain (Ps 78:68–69)

and the fulcrum for the universe.11 Yhwh rules as king from his holy city, Zion,

and humans who live in the city with God must meet God’s standard of holiness

(Ps 24:3–4; Is 33:13–16).

The narrative of the DtrH includes a tension between the ideal kingship in-

tended for Israel and the reality of Saul, David, and Solomon. The need for a king

was met at first by the anointing and reign of King Saul, but ultimately Saul only

served to highlight the need for a righteous and just king. When this ideal appears

to be met in David, Yhwh promises in one of the most important speeches of the

DtrH that a son of David will rule forever (2 Sm 7).12 But again, the disappointing

flaws in David create a tension that is sustained throughout much of 2 Samuel: the

ideal and hope of King David versus his failures. This extended contrast creates a

deliberate antinomy, a tension that drives the reader past the pages of 1–2 Samuel

for answers.13 The DtrH itself does not resolve that tension, especially as the Books

of Kings merely intensify the longing for the ideal by illustrating repeatedly the

failure of Israel’s and Judah’s royal leadership. Thus by sustaining and prolonging

the antinomy between ideal promises and unfulfilled reality, the DtrH outlines the

contours of an eschatological messianism that emerges in the prophets (Is 11:1–2;

Jer 23:5; Am 9:11–15).

With the Old Testament prophets, we arrive at genuine eschatology. However,

even here we must deal with a debate surrounding when precisely the concept

emerged in ancient Israel. Is it strictly speaking only a postexilic phenomenon or is

the concept also present in the preexilic prophets? Julius Wellhausen, in his typical

fashion, emphasized discontinuity between Judaism and earlier Israelite religion,

and so assumed the appearance of an eschatological hope only in the later peri-

ods.14 His discussion of the topic, however, links eschatological hope only with

apocalypticism and makes no room for such future hope as a component of Isra-

elite preexilic prophecy generally. The influence of this approach on subsequent

26 bill t. arnold

scholarship is apparent in numerous works, and one approach is to assume that

‘‘broadly speaking, what the prophets proclaimed was not eschatology, but an ur-

gent message from God about the immediate future.’’15

Central to this discussion is the meaning of the concept ‘‘day of Yhwh’’ in the

prophetic literature. The exact phrase, yoom yhwh, ‘‘day of the Lord,’’ occurs only

sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible,16 but is also denoted by various other phrases,

such as ‘‘on that day’’ (e.g., Am 8:9; Zep 1:9–10). Generally, the idea refers to a period

of time when Yhwh arrives to establish his decisive rule on earth, vindicating the

faithful remnant but also punishing the wicked. Scholarly debate has centered

around the putative origins of the day of Yhwh, with most gravitating to the theory

that it was derived from the holy war traditions,17 especially as these traditions were

carried through the royal cult.18 Others have attempted to locate the origins of the

day of Yhwh in the cult as it may have found expression in an annual new year rit-

ual celebrating the coronation of the Lord.19 Earlier, it was argued that the preexilic

prophets were dependent for their day of Yhwh theme on a preprophetic escha-

tology common among many groups in the ancient Near East and borrowed par-

ticularly from the Babylonians.20 But no such preprophetic ‘‘Eastern eschatology’’

has been shown to have existed in the ancient world, and it is no longer tenable to

assume such a widespread popular eschatology at the core of Israel’s day of Yhwh

theme. Others have simply asserted that the eschatological aspect of the day of Yhwh

is present only in late prophecy because eschatology arose no earlier than the exile.21

Regardless of how we answer the question of the origins of the day of Yhwh,

the issue for the current discussion is whether the concept is inherently eschatolog-

ical. At times the expression, or ones very similar to it, point to a day of reckoning

describing past events, such as Ezekiel 13:5, where it refers to the fall of Jerusalem in

586 BCE,22 or Jeremiah 46:10, where it mentions the defeat of Egypt. From these

uses, the concept is clearly not inherently eschatological.23However, the earliest ex-

ample of the day of Yhwh clearly addresses future hopes, and merits special men-

tion here. The eighth-century prophet Amos turned the tables, so to speak, on his

audience by reversing their popular beliefs regarding the day of Yhwh in a text

often cited in these discussions (Am 5:18–20, NJPS).

(18) Ah, you who wish for the day of the Lord! Why should you want the day

of the Lord? It shall be darkness, not light!

(19)—As if a man should run from a lion and be attacked by a bear; Or if he

got indoors, should lean his hand on the wall and be bitten by a snake!

(20) Surely the day of the Lord shall be not light, but darkness, blackest night

without a glimmer.

The people of Amos’s day clearly hoped and longed for Yhwh’s day, in which

Yhwh would punish Israel’s enemies and deliver them from their troubles. But the

prophet surprisingly and dramatically reversed their popular ideology by turning

the day into a judgment, not of Israel’s enemies, but of Israel!24 Although there is

nothing intrinsically eschatological about the day of Yhwh, its use takes on a nega-

tive expectation, and when tied to the positive expectations of the people rooted

old testament eschatology and the rise of apocalypticism 27

and grounded as they were in Sinaitic covenant hopes and Davidic expectations,

this prophetic preaching becomes a negative eschatology, as it were.25 With Amos,

we have not yet reached a genuinely ‘‘last times’’ oracle, including end-of-the-world

final judgment, but this negative expectation combined with the conceptual foun-

dations of Israel’s wider hope left an important impression on later prophets, who

developed it into a mature eschatology (Zephaniah and Ezekiel). Amos, nonethe-

less, can be construed as a negative proto-eschatology in which the end of the pres-

ent order and the judgment of Israel are foreseen.

Regardless of what we make of the day of Yhwh in the preexilic prophets, or

whether or not those prophets intoned genuine eschatology, it is clear that during

and after the exile, eschatology became an important concept in ancient Israel,

which is reflected in several literary components of the Old Testament. New and

renewed themes are introduced by the prophets of the exile, that is, Ezekiel and

Second Isaiah.26 A renewed interest in the ancestral covenant is combined with cre-

ation themes and, above all, an exploration of monotheism and its ramifications.

The theme of Yhwh as ‘‘father’’ is more common in this period, as is the role of

Yhwh as go’el, ‘‘Redeemer.’’ Of special interest in this discussion is the use of the

exilic prophets of the conceptual foundations of ancestral and Sinaitic covenants

combined with the Davidic ideal in a new eschatological hope, in which everything

lost will be restored. The nation’s cities will be rebuilt and the population will be

restored; the ideal earthly Israel will be revived in a new era of prosperity and peace.

Israel’s relationship with Yhwh will be restored, and everything lost in the exile will

be returned. The restoration will be parallel to Israel’s earliest history, a new exodus

resulting in a new Israel and a new covenant. This eschatological restoration can

be summarized by the recurring expression sub sebut, ‘‘to restore the fortunes,’’ a

collocation already popular in the preexilic prophets for the general restoration

of lost status, but which came now to denote, specifically, restoration from exile.27

Ezekiel, relying heavily on his predecessor Jeremiah, also emphasized the ideal

Davidic ruler as part of the restoration, although the term ‘‘Messiah’’ does not yet

occur.28 Second Isaiah, on the other hand, prefers to speak of Yhwh as the King of

Israel, who will come to restored Israel in the age to come.

After the exile ended, the conceptual foundations at the core of Israel’s re-

demptive history (i.e., Yhwh as creator and God of the ancestors, God of the

covenants of Sinai and Zion, and sustainer of King David) coalesced in the post-

exilic prophets in a new era of eschatological development. The ideologies prev-

alent during the exile, especially as these were preserved in the writings of Second

Isaiah, were especially influential in these developments. The restoration commu-

nity faced poverty, poor harvests, internal adversaries, corruption and idolatry,

threat of foreign invasion, and despair. Such deprivation and hardship further

impacted the prophetic hopes for this period. In particular, these prophets evinced

a renewed interest in the ancestral traditions (Mal 1:2–3; Is 58:13–14, 63:7–9) and the

covenants (Zec 9:11; Mal 2:10, 3:1). They explored further the implications of mono-

theism, which was universalized for a new political period (Zec 4:10; Mal 1:11; and

perhaps Is 66:1–2). Like their predecessors, the postexilic prophets were concerned

28 bill t. arnold

with the ethical demands of Israel’s relationship with Yhwh (Zec 7:8–10; Mal 3:5),

and they also reflected an increased emphasis on the spirit of Yhwh (Hg 2:5; Zec

4:6, 6:8, 12:10; and perhaps Jl 3:1–2 [Eng. 2:28–29]).

Thus during the postexilic period, a powerful convergence of Israel’s older

ideologies with the disappointments and deprivations of the restoration commu-

nity, together with the political upheavals surrounding the fall of Babylon and the

new world order created by the Persians resulted in a decisively new eschatological

tradition.29 In an ideal age to come, the population of beleaguered Jerusalem will

once again be large, with plenty of elderly sitting peacefully in its streets, which are

also full of boys and girls playing carefree (Zec 8:4–5; see also Zec 2:8 [Eng 2:4] and

10:8). In that age, all apostate and idolatrous inhabitants of the land will be de-

stroyed, and those who remain will constitute a holy and pure religious community

(Zec 3:9, 8:3, 13:1–2), a single nation reuniting Israel and Judah (Is 27:12–13, 56:8,

60:4, 62:10; Zec 6:15, 8:7–8, 9:11–13, 10:6).

The eschatological vision of the postexilic prophets begins to take on a trans-

formative and cosmic dimension, resulting in descriptions of this new eon that will

transcend all current human experiences. That era knows neither cold nor frost, nor

night and day, since all is one continuous day (Zec 14:6–7). The Mount of Olives will

be split in two and completely rearranged so that the valley will run east-west rather

than the current north-south orientation (Zec 14:4). Living waters shall flow from

Jerusalem year-round, flowing to theMediterranean in theWest and to the Dead Sea

in the East (Zec 14:8). God will create a new cosmos although with continuity to the

old order; all will be changed by returning to former ‘‘first’’ conditions (Is 65:17–18).

The ‘‘Isaiah apocalypse’’ (Is 24–27) includes many such changes in the cosmic order,

such as the rending asunder of earth itself (24:19–20) and the darkening of the sun

and moon (24:23).30 Judgment against all the enemies of Yhwh is central to this end-

times vision, whether those enemies are Gentiles or unfaithful Jews (Zec 12:2–3,

14:12–15). Other pagans will be converted to Yhwh and will become God’s people

(Zec 2:15 [Eng 2:11], 8:20–23, 14:16). The ideal king for this ideal era, the descendant of

David, was assumed to be Zerubbabel by both Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 2:23; Zec

4:6–10, 12:8).31 This great and terrible day of Yhwh will be heralded by blood and fire

and columns of smoke; the sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood (Jl

3:3–4 [Eng 2:30–31]). Such cosmic mythological language is often assumed to be

‘‘apocalyptic’’ in nature, but as we shall see, this is not an adequate descriptor.

Ancient Near Eastern Parallels.................................................................................................................................................

Any investigation of Old Testament eschatology must consider Israel’s role in

the ancient Near East generally and the degree to which Israel shared eschato-

logical themes and impulses with its neighbors in the ancient world. Whereas

old testament eschatology and the rise of apocalypticism 29

nineteenth-century scholars had not been particularly interested in this topic, this

began to change with the emergence of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (History of

Religions School), especially with Gunkel’s and Gressmann’s reliance on materials

from the ancient Near East to illuminate genres of biblical literature. This approach

was characterized by a conviction that Israel’s religion grew out of its larger ancient

Near Eastern matrix, and yet it also asserted, as exemplified by Gunkel’s work, that

comparative religious studies would reveal ‘‘the peculiarity of the Israelite spirit.’’32

Gunkel emphasized the individuality of Israelite tradition while insisting that Is-

raelite religion was not something entirely distinctive. Specific to the topic of this

chapter, Gressmann believed that Israelite eschatology was already developed by the

time of Amos and that it was borrowed from a fully developed Babylonian escha-

tology, a view he shared with Gunkel.33

Such pan-Babylonianism has long since been discredited, and comparative

methods employing ancient Near Eastern data became increasingly more sophis-

ticated toward the close of the twentieth century.34Yet the question persists: to what

degree were the eschatological convictions embedded in the texts of the Old Tes-

tament shared with Israel’s neighbors? The evidence currently available leads us to

conclude that Israel is somewhat distinctive in this regard because, although recent

decades have witnessed a growing appreciation for prophets and prophecy in the

ancient Near East, we lack in these texts anything like the level of eschatological

hope evinced in ancient Israel. So although several prophetic phenomena are

common to many regions and peoples of the ancient world, the conclusion reached

many years ago by Ernst Jenni is for the meantime still true: ‘‘the eschatological

view of the Old Testament finds no real parallels in nonbiblical religions, even if it

has absorbed and elaborated on all kinds of foreign motifs.’’35

Prophecy more generally is a phenomenon known widely throughout the an-

cient Near East, although we currently possess a concentration of sources fromMari

and the neo-Assyrian period.36 These prophets functioned in a similar manner to

Israel’s prophets, in that they acted as mouthpieces for the gods, so that prophecy

itself was perceived as human transmission of divine messages, serving both trans-

missive and communicative aspects.37

Much has been written about the dozens of prophetic texts from Mari, in-

cluded among the nearly 25,000 documents found in the excavations at Tell_Harıri

in modern Syria.38 These prophetic oracles are preserved embedded in epistolary

records, nearly all from the time of King Zimri-Lim (c. 1774–1760 BCE). Rather

than prophecies preserved alone as a report on a single tablet, these are letters

quoting the words of the prophecy for the benefit of the addressee, and typically the

message is conveyed to the king by means of a confidant rather than directly by the

prophet. Although Mari Akkadian has no abstract noun ‘‘prophecy,’’ the prophets

themselves were designated by a number of titles, not unlike Israelite prophets.39

The prophetic message itself could be received by variousmeans, including a trance,

audition, vision, or ecstatic possession. The kings of Mari appear to have counted

prophets among a hierarchy of divinatory sources, which included also dreamers

and haruspices (baru), who divined by means of extispicy or hepatoscopy.40 The

30 bill t. arnold

prophecies most often deal with the military exploits of the king in attempts to

ensure his well-being, and often call Mari’s enemy by name, giving modern schol-

ars data for reconstructing the specific political crisis in view. At times, the proph-

ecies deal with concerns related to the proper maintenance of the religious cult,

social justice, or simple architectural activities. In general, such prophets were the

mouthpieces of deities and servants of the specific gods they represented.

In addition to the Mari texts, a remarkable collection from the neo-Assyrian

period preserves oracles of nine women and four men addressed usually to the king

of Assyria, either Esarhaddon (681–669 BCE) or Assurbanipal (668–627 BCE).41

These texts contain many striking features similar to the prophetic activities of

Israelite prophets. Remarkably, the collection contains a few texts in whichmultiple

oracles are collected on a single tablet, arranged chronologically and perhaps even

thematically.42 In this sense, these texts may illustrate the progression from oral to

written preservation of prophetic oracles, and even the elemental composition of

a prophetic book. However, as fascinating as these comparisons are, it should also

be cautioned that we still have nothing remotely similar in the ancient world to

the monumental literary compositions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, or other biblical books of

prophecy.43

Considerable caution is in order when comparing and contrasting Israel’s

world view with the ancient Near East. There were demonstrable differences be-

tween Israelite society and that of its neighbors, due largely to Israel’s perduring

tribal allegiances when compared to the mostly urban cultures of Mesopotamia

and Egypt. These differences are most evident in theological disparities between

Israel’s exclusive monotheism—despite the date of its origins—and the ancient

world’s open and receptive polytheism. On the other hand, Israel also shared pro-

found similarities with its neighbors in the ancient world, especially when one

considers its religiously dominated culture vis-a-vis today’s secularizing materi-

alism.44 Despite the dangers of such generalizing comparisons, it appears that

Jenni’s conclusion is still valid. Although Israel shared many features in common

with ancient Near Eastern prophecy and prophetic phenomena, we have at present

no evidence outside of Israel for an eschatological notion of a glorious Endzeit, or

a culminating and meliorative end to the historical process.45

Old Testament Eschatology

and Apocalypticism.................................................................................................................................................

In addition to these questions on the nature of prophecy in the ancient world gen-

erally, the nature of apocalypses and apocalyptic literature requires comment here,

especially the seemingly intractable problem of the definition of apocalypticism

old testament eschatology and the rise of apocalypticism 31

itself and its relationship to Old Testament eschatology. Finally, the perennial ques-

tion of the genetic connections between the two will close the chapter.

Terminology itself can impede progress in our understanding. The word

‘‘apocalypse’’ derives from the Greek apokalypsis, ‘‘revelation,’’ which is the first

significant word of the Book of Revelation: ‘‘The revelation of Jesus Christ.’’ This

usage in Revelation 1:1 thus gives its name to a literary genre, ‘‘apocalypse,’’ and to

an ideological phenomenon, ‘‘apocalypticism.’’ An imprecise use of the adjective

‘‘apocalyptic’’ as a noun referring in the scholarship to both a literary type and a

system of thought has occasionally obfuscated the discussion.46 Today, most schol-

ars avoid the problem by reserving ‘‘apocalyptic’’ as an adjective and using ‘‘apoc-

alypse’’ as a noun for a distinct literary genre.47

As we have seen, the definition of ‘‘eschatology’’ itself is not simple. As it relates

to the Hebrew scriptures, eschatology is the expectation of a future eon discon-

tinuous with the present, in which the circumstances of history will be transformed

and the present cosmos redeemed by God. Such a conviction that the intrinsic de-

pravity of the present world will someday be overturned results in an eschatological

ethic, calling upon God’s people to live faithfully to the covenant and the righ-

teousness enjoined by the prophets. This definition is not bound to any distinct

genre, since eschatology is characterized by themes and motifs possible in prose,

poetry, or any manner of literary form. By contrast, ‘‘apocalypse’’ is necessarily

genre-specific. It is paradoxically both easy to define because it constitutes a con-

vergence of characteristics marking it as a genre of literature, and difficult to de-

fine because that convergence is not entirely obvious.48 By definition, apocalypse

always foresees eschatological salvation (see below), but not all eschatology is ex-

pressed in apocalyptic form.49

Scholarly efforts to find a useful definition of the genre apocalypse reached a

turning point in the late 1970s in a working group of the Society of Biblical Lit-

erature, led by John J. Collins. His summary of the group’s conclusions in 1979 of-

fered a widely accepted definition of the genre:

An apocalypse is defined as: ‘‘a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative

framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a

human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, inso-

far as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves

another, supernatural world.’’50

Much scholarly attention was devoted to refining this definition over the next

decade (see the next chapter in this volume). There is obviously a certain degree of

circularity involved in assuming that (1) a delimited collection of texts is intuitively

identified as apocalypse, that (2) the shared characteristics of those texts constitute

the definition of the genre, and that (3) the definition then determines which texts

are included in the collection.51 Nevertheless, the validity of this circular argu-

ment may be granted once we acknowledge the intuitive nature of the collection of

apocalypses and agree on the characteristic features. The formulation of Collins’s

group is therefore justified and remains the most useful working definition.

32 bill t. arnold

The apocalypse genre denotes literature containing a unique manner and style

of communication and having in common a basic content.52 Apocalyptic books

characteristically are visionary, containing an initial revelation that is symbolic and

mysterious, requiring interpretation by a heavenly mediator. Most of these writings

use vaticinium ex eventu, ‘‘prediction after the fact,’’ and the name of the author, if

given, is assumed to be a pseudonym, most claiming as authors a venerated hero of

Israelite faith (such as Enoch, Abraham, Isaiah, or Ezra), who lived centuries before

the books were actually written. These writings typically share certain themes,

including a sensitivity to the distinction between the spiritual world and the phys-

ical, with angels or demons sometimes representing the supernatural world, and, at

other times, the recipient of the vision is carried into the other world for a heavenly

journey. These works almost always periodize history, culminating in a final es-

chatological judgment, which rewards the good and punishes the wicked in a life

beyond death. Although the ancients did not formulate a list of works identified as

apocalypses, contemporary scholars have isolated seventeen books that fit this cat-

egory, ranging from the mid-second century BCE to the second century CE, in ad-

dition to several more from the Dead Sea Scrolls.53

The Old Testament contains portions that are universally recognized as shar-

ing apocalyptic features, whether we call these early or proto-apocalypses (e.g., Is

24–27; Zec 9–14; Jl 3–4) or, in one case, a fully developed apocalypse (Dn 7–12). All

of these passages include some form of eschatology, obviously by definition of

apocalypse, which means they all expect a future time when Yhwh will bring a

judgment of equilibrium to the cosmos, including a time of restitution for Israel.

The presence of apocalyptic portions among the prophets of the Old Testament

raises the question of the difference between prophetic eschatology and apocalyptic

eschatology. Paul Hanson postulated the difference in terms of a contrast between

myth and history,54 which however has been criticized by many.55 John J. Collins

has offered the best explanation in several publications, suggesting that the differ-

ence between prophetic and apocalyptic eschatology lies in the expectation of the

judgment of the individual dead.56

Beyond this distinction between prophetic eschatology and apocalyptic escha-

tology, scholars have long sought clarity on the problem of the origins of apoca-

lypticism. The most important proposals have been (1) the emergence of Jewish

apocalypticism under the influence of Zoroastrian dualism, (2) apocalypticism as

an evolutionary transformation of Old Testament prophecy in the postexilic pe-

riod, and (3) apocalypticism as a development of Old Testament wisdom litera-

ture.57 With regard to the second of these options, the very fact that several proto-

apocalyptic texts appear within the contexts of larger prophetic collections (Is

24–27; Zec 12–14; Jl 3–4), in addition to the presence of a fully developed apocalypse

in the Bible (i.e., Dn 7–12), would lead one to assume some sort of genetic rela-

tionship between Israelite prophecy and apocalypticism.58 In an influential book

in 1959, Otto Ploger argued that certain of these postexilic eschatological passages

(again, citing Is 24–27; Zec 12–14; and Jl 3–4) could produce ‘‘a line, when joined

together, that leads from the older restoration eschatology, which is certainly

old testament eschatology and the rise of apocalypticism 33

within the sphere of influence of the pre-exilic prophetic promises, to the rather

different, dualistic and apocalyptic form of eschatology, such as we find in a fairly

complete form in the Book of Daniel.’’59

While the genetic relationship between Old Testament prophecy and apoca-

lypticism is attractive, we should not dismiss unequivocally the role of wisdom

literature and the possibility of a sapientializing of prophecy,60 nor for that matter

the influence of Persian dualism. Indeed, Jewish apocalypticism appears on the

scene as an entirely new phenomenon drawing on a wide range of sources, and it

seems likely the quest for its origins is misdirected.61 In fact, the perceived choices

of Zoroastrianism, prophecy, and wisdom create arbitrary and artificial categories,

resulting in scholarly choices that would be foreign to ancient sensibilities. Rather,

we should acknowledge that prophecy, apocalypticism, and mantic wisdom shared

overlapping terms in antiquity and that they were perceived to be similar or related

areas rather than sharply differentiated ones.62 Thus the quest for a linear evolution

of apocalypticism should be redirected to consider these various influences as mul-

tiple tributaries to a single flow of thought.

NOTES.................................................................................................................................................

All abbreviations used here may be found in Patrick H. Alexander, The SBL Handbook of

Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 121–52.

1. Ernst Jenni, ‘‘Eschatology,’’ IDB 2:126–33, esp. 126; see also Hans-Peter Muller,

Urspr€uunge und Strukturen alttestamentlicher Eschatologie (BZAW 109; Berlin: Topelmann,

1969), 1–11; Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh (New York: Abingdon, 1954), 149–54;

Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper, 1962–1965), 2:118.

2. Although theologians have tended to make rather too much of the Hebrew concep-

tions of time based on philological subtleties, it is nevertheless instructive to note that

temporal orientation is connected to spatial categories and that the past is ‘‘before’’ one

(qedem) and the future is ‘‘behind’’ (|ah:

ar). Thus the Israelites, with apparently all other

peoples of the ancient world, perceived themselves standing on a line going from east to west,

from past to future, moving along the line backward. See Nicolas Wyatt, ‘‘The Vocabulary

and Neurology of Orientation: The Ugaritic and Hebrew Evidence,’’ in Ugarit, Religion and

Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edin-

burgh, July 1994: Essays in Honour of Professor J. C. L. Gibson, ed. NicolasWyatt, Wilfred G. E.

Watson, and J. B. Lloyd (UBL 12;Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), 351–80, andmore generally,

Nicolas Wyatt, Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East (Biblical Seminar 85;

Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 33–52. This has been compared to

perceiving time as a rower in a rowboat moving into the future backward, seeing clearly what

has transpired in the past, spread out before us, but only dimly aware of the future behind us.

Hans W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 88; contra

Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 148.

34 bill t. arnold

3. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament, 2. As to whether this is genuine

eschatology—asking ‘‘end of what?’’—Gowan asserts that the answer is clearly ‘‘the end

of evil.’’

4. Donald E. Gowan, From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1–11

(ITC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988), 123–27.

5. Such chronological observations are difficult, of course, in light of the problems

associated with dating most of the biblical materials. However, in this case, it is patently

obvious that eschatology is a late development in ancient Israel.

6. Jenni, ‘‘Eschatology,’’ esp. 127.

7. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985),

126–27.

8. David L. Petersen, ‘‘Eschatology (OT),’’ ABD 2:575–79, esp. 577.

9. J. J. M. Roberts, ‘‘The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,’’

in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charles-

worth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 39–51, esp. 42–43; repr. in The Bible and the Ancient

Near East: Collected Essays, ed. J. J. M. Roberts (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002),

376–89, esp. 379. On the glorification of Jerusalem, presupposing the importance of the

Temple, the cultus, and the priesthood, see J. J. M. Roberts, ‘‘Zion in the Theology of the

Davidic-Solomonic Empire,’’ in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other

Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5–7 De-

cember 1979, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 93–108; repr. in

Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 331–47.

10. Roberts, ‘‘Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,’’ 100–104; repr.

in Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 331–47, esp. 338–43.

11. Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco:

Harper & Row, 1987), 111–37.

12. The themes of this important chapter are developed elsewhere in the Old Testa-

ment (e.g., Ps 89; Jer 23:5–8; Ez 37:21–23; Hg 2:21–22; Zec 3:8–10, 12:10–13:1), and in

Second Temple Judaism (4 Ezr 12:31–32; Psalms of Solomon 17–18; 1QM 11:1–18; 4QFlor

1:11–14; 4QTest 9–13).

13. Philip E. Satterthwaite, ‘‘David in the Books of Samuel: A Messianic Hope?’’ in The

Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite,

Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham (Carlisle, U.K., and Grand Rapids, Mich.: Pa-

ternoster Press and Baker Books, 1995), 41–65, esp. 64–65.

14. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars,

1994), 502–8; repr. of Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black

and Allan Enzies (Edinburgh: Black, 1885); trans. of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels,

2nd ed. (Berlin: Reimer, 1883). Also see Julius Wellhausen, Israelitische und J€uudische Ge-

schichte, 9th ed. (Berlin: DeGruyter, 1958), 109–47, 151–61, 206.

15. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 460; and see also Johannes Lindblom, Prophecy in

Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), 360–75.

16. Is 13:6, 9; Ez 13:5; Jl 1:15, 2:1, 11, 3:4 [Eng. 2:31], 4:14 [Eng. 3:14]; Am 5:18 (twice),

5:20; Ob 15; Zep 1:7, 14 (twice); Mal 3:23 [Eng. 4:5].

17. Gerhard von Rad, ‘‘The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh,’’ Journal of

Semitic Studies 4 (1959): 97–108; for critique, see Meir Weiss, ‘‘The Origin of the ‘Day of

the Lord’—Reconsidered,’’ Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966): 29–60.

18. Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the

Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 111; Patrick D.

old testament eschatology and the rise of apocalypticism 35

Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-

versity Press, 1973).

19. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 145 and 261.

20. Hugo Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-j€uudischen Eschatologie (FRLANT 6;

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1905). On the Gressmann-Gunkel History of

Religions School, see below.

21. K. J. Cathcart, ‘‘Day of Yahweh,’’ ABD 2:84–85.

22. And compare Lam 1:12, 2:1, 21–22.

23. Ralph W. Klein, ‘‘The Day of Yahweh,’’ Concordia Theological Monthly 39 (1968):

517–25.

24. For other examples of dramatic reversals in Amos, see 3:1–2, 5:4–6, 9:7; and

Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991),

182–84.

25. Petersen, ‘‘Eschatology (OT),’’ 577.

26. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, 375–403.

27. And see a parallel in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefıre (BibOr

19; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 119.

28. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 291–94.

29. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, 415–22; Petersen, ‘‘Eschatology (OT),’’

578.

30. Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature

(FOTL 16; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 313.

31. On the difficult issues surrounding the interpretation of Zec 4:6–10 and 6:9–14,

see David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1984), 240–44.

32. Hermann Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine re-

ligionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung €uuber Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12, 2nd ed. (Gottingen: Van-

denhoeck and Ruprecht, 1921), vi–vii.

33. Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-j€uudischen Eschatologie, 143 and 238–40.

34. See the introductory articles by William W. Hallo in the Context of Scripture, and

the literature cited there; ‘‘Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Their Relevance for Biblical

Exegesis,’’ COS 1.xxiii–xxviii, and ‘‘Sumer and the Bible: A Matter of Proportion,’’ COS

3.xlix–liv.

35. Jenni, ‘‘Eschatology,’’ 127.

36. Space does not allow here a full discussion of individual examples of prophecy

from the ancient Near East, such as the ecstatic prophet in the Report of Wenamun (see

Miriam Lichtheim, ‘‘The Report of Wenamun,’’ COS 1.41:89–93) and other Egyptian

examples, or the several individual cases of prophecies preserved in West Semitic in-

scriptions (see Choon-Leong Seow, ‘‘West Semitic Sources,’’ in Prophets and Prophecy in

the Ancient Near East, ed. Martti Nissinen [SBLWAW 12; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of

Biblical Literature, 2003], 201–28). See also Wyatt, Space and Time in the Religious Life of

the Near East, 271–99.

37. Nissinen, ‘‘Introduction,’’ in Prophets and Prophecy, 1–11.

38. Jean-Claude Margueron, ‘‘Mari,’’ OEANE 3:413–17. The prophecy texts are now

conveniently available in two recent translations: Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy, 13–77,

and Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 157–253. For the burgeoning secondary

literature on these texts, see Jean-Georges Heintz, Bibliographie de Mari: Archeologie et

Textes (1933–1988) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990), which is occasionally supplemented

in the periodical Akkadica.

36 bill t. arnold

39. For the titles, see Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy, 5–8 and 14, and Roberts, The

Bible and the Ancient Near East, 158–59.

40. Jack M. Sasson, ‘‘About ‘Mari and the Bible,’ ’’ Revue d’assyriologie et d’archeologie

orientale 92 (1998): 97–123, esp. 116–19.

41. Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press,

1997), and Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy, 97–132. In addition to actual prophetic texts,

many other neo-Assyrian sources refer to the prophets and their activities, illuminating the

roles of the prophets in this period; cf. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy, 133–77. It is

difficult to place a genre label on a small collection of six texts best known as Akkadian

‘‘literary predictive texts,’’ which have recently been distinguished from prophecy and

apocalyptic; see Martti Nissinen, ‘‘Neither Prophecies nor Apocalypses: The Akkadian

Literary Predictive Texts,’’ in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the

Apocalyptic, and Their Relationships, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (JSP 46;

London: Clark International, 2003), 134–48.

42. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, xix and lxviii.

43. David L. Petersen, The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction (Louisville, Ky.:

Westminster John Knox, 2002), 14–18; and Petersen, ‘‘Introduction to Prophetic Litera-

ture,’’ NIB 6:1–23, esp. 11.

44. For these similarities and disparities, see Karel van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in

Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study (SSN 22; Assen/Maastricht, The Nether-

lands: Van Gorcum, 1985), 3–7.

45. Wyatt has suggested this may have been Israel’s version of a widespread axial age

development; Wyatt, Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East, 323.

46. For a summary, see James C. VanderKam, ‘‘The Prophetic-Sapiential Origins of

Apocalyptic Thought,’’ in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane, ed.

James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies (JSOTSup 42; Sheffield, England: Journal for the

Study of the Old Testament, 1986), 163–76, esp. 163–64.

47. Despite the objections of some: Lester L. Grabbe, ‘‘Introduction and Overview,’’ in

Grabbe and Haak, Knowing the End from the Beginning, 2–43, esp. 3.

48. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, 422.

49. Petersen, ‘‘Eschatology (OT),’’ 576a.

50. John J. Collins, ‘‘Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,’’ in Apoc-

alypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. John J. Collins (Semeia 14; Missoula, Mont.:

Scholars, 1979), 1–20, esp. 9.

51. VanderKam, ‘‘The Prophetic-Sapiential Origins of Apocalyptic Thought,’’ esp.

164.

52. John J. Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (FOTL 20;

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), esp. 1–24.

53. D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 BC–AD 100

(OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), esp. 37–38.

54. Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of

Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 11.

55. See especially J. J. M. Roberts, ‘‘Myth versus History: Relaying the Comparative

Foundations,’’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 1–13, repr. in Roberts, The Bible and

the Ancient Near East, 59–71, esp. 60–66.

56. John J. Collins, ‘‘Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death,’’

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 21–43; repr. in Visionaries and Their Apocalypses, ed.

Paul D. Hanson (IRT 2; Philadelphia and London: Fortress Press and SPCK, 1983), 61–86.

57. For discussion and literature, see the next chapter in this volume.

old testament eschatology and the rise of apocalypticism 37

58. Marvin A. Sweeney, ‘‘The Priesthood and the Proto-Apocalyptic Reading of

Prophetic and Pentateuchal Texts,’’ in Grabbe and Haak, Knowing the End from the Be-

ginning, 167–78, esp. 167.

59. Otto Ploger, Theocracy and Eschatology (Richmond, Va.: Knox, 1968), 108; repr. of

Otto Ploger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,

1959). In a move that has had much influence on the debate, Ploger also argued for a non-

eschatological party in the postexilic community of Jerusalem, represented especially in the

views of the Chronicler. This party believed that the restoration community was the

fulfillment of the plan of God, and therefore no such eschatological expectation was

needed. Although there are some reservations about Ploger’s overall approach to the Books

of Chronicles, his interpretation has been fundamentally confirmed; see H. G. M. Wil-

liamson, ‘‘Eschatology in Chronicles,’’ Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977): 115–54; repr. in

H. G. M. Williamson, ed., Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (FAT 38;

Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004): 162–95.

60. Magne Saebo, ‘‘Old Testament Apocalyptic and Its Relation to Prophecy and

Wisdom: The View of Gerhard von Rad Reconsidered,’’ in In the Last Days: On Jewish and

Christian Apocalyptic and Its Period, ed. Knud Jeppesen, Kirsten Nielsen, Bent Rosendal,

and Benedikt Otzen (Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1994), 78–91; especially

as this relates to ‘‘proto-apocalyptic,’’ see Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism:

The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), and Stephen L. Cook, The

Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2003).

61. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic

Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 23–37.

62. James C. VanderKam, ‘‘Apocalyptic Literature,’’ in The Cambridge Companion to

Biblical Interpretation, ed. John Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998),

305–22, esp. 311–14.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................................

Collins, John J. ‘‘Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.’’ Pages 1–20 in

Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Edited by John J. Collins. Semeia 14. Missoula,

Mont.: Scholars, 1979.

———. Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Forms of Old Testament

Literature, 20. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984.

———. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.

Biblical Resource Series. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.

Cook, Stephen L. Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1995.

———. The Apocalyptic Literature. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2003.

Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Grabbe, Lester L., and Robert D. Haak, eds. Knowing the End from the Beginning: The

Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and Their Relationships. London: Clark International, 2003.

Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish

Apocalyptic Eschatology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Jenni, Ernst. ‘‘Eschatology.’’ The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 2:126–33.

Lindblom, Johannes. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Blackwell, 1963.

38 bill t. arnold

Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. New York: Abingdon, 1954.

Muller, Hans-Peter. Urspr€uunge und Strukturen alttestamentlicher Eschatologie. Beihefte zur

Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 109. Berlin: Topelmann, 1969.

Petersen, David L. The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster

John Knox, 2002.

Ploger, Otto. Theokratie und Eschatologie. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten

und Neuen Testament, 2. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959; translation:

Theocracy and Eschatology. Richmond, Va.: Knox, 1968.

Roberts, J. J. M. ‘‘The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations.’’ Pages 39–

51 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James

H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 BC–AD 100. Old Tes-

tament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964.

Satterthwaite, Philip E. ‘‘David in the Books of Samuel: A Messianic Hope?’’ Pages 41–65 in

The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by P. E.

Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham. Carlisle, U.K., and Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster Press and Baker Books, 1995.

Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. Forms of Old

Testament Literature, 16. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996.

VanderKam, James C. ‘‘The Prophetic-Sapiential Origins of Apocalyptic Thought.’’ Pages

163–76 in AWord in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane. Edited by James D.

Martin and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament, 1986.

———. ‘‘Apocalyptic Literature.’’ Pages 305–22 in The Cambridge Companion to Biblical

Interpretation. Edited by John Barton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

old testament eschatology and the rise of apocalypticism 39